His arguments about proportionality for money-laundering checks also apply to IPBill.

Share this story

A Conservative MP, who threatened to bring in a bill banning curtains if he were forced to publish his tax returns, has triumphed over the UK's chancellor of the exchequer. George Osborne has caved to Charles Walker's demands, agreeing to make MPs exempt from money-laundering checks.

According to an article in the Mirror: "MPs appear on automatic watch lists of 'Politically Exposed Persons' (PEP), used by banks to prevent money being funnelled into criminal gangs or hidden in offshore tax havens. It means MPs and their families could be subject to extra checks on their bank accounts." However, in a forthcoming Bank of England Bill, MPs will now be excluded from such checks.

Walker made his comment about banning curtains after David Cameron, in the wake of the Panama Papers fracas, promised he would publish his tax returns in response to calls for greater transparency about his finances. The Mirror quotes Walker as saying: "I have no intention of publishing my tax returns. And I tell you what, if we do publish tax returns, because people say nothing to fear, nothing to hide, I'll bring forward a private member's bill in parliament to ban curtains from people's homes."

Further Reading

The "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" line is one that is used not just by transparency campaigners, but also by the UK government, for example in support of its incoming Investigatory Powers Bill. To be fair to Walker, his record on surveillance legislation has been quite solid: according to the Public Whip site he has consistently refused to support this kind of law, either by voting against it or by being absent.

During a UK parliamentary debate on the issue of money-laundering checks, held in January this year, Walker made the following comment: "regulation needs to be proportionate to the risk, with the highest-risk bank customers attracting the most scrutiny from their compliance departments."

Of course, exactly the same could be said about the Investigatory Powers Bill: rather than snooping on all of us, the highest-risk threats should attract the most scrutiny. Maybe Walker could make that point when it comes to debating the Snooper's Charter—assuming he turns up, of course.